14th Amendment
Arizona Takes Legal Action Against Trump Over ‘Misguided’ Birthright Citizenship Order

In a rapid response to an executive order from President Donald Trump regarding birthright citizenship, Arizona’s Democratic leaders have initiated a lawsuit aimed at overturning the action, declaring it unconstitutional. Attorney General Kris Mayes expressed strong disapproval, emphasizing that the 14th Amendment and longstanding legal precedents cannot be ignored. “The President wants to twist history and have us pretend that the words in the 14th Amendment and a century-and-a-half of legal precedent do not mean anything. He is dead wrong,” Mayes stated at a news conference.
Governor Katie Hobbs similarly condemned the move, labeling it “un-American.” She warned that the change could disrupt state agencies and harm Arizona residents: “It would cause chaos in our state government, making it harder for our state to deliver the critical services that Arizonans rely on and burden Arizona taxpayers with increased costs,” Hobbs noted.
Arizona has joined Washington, Illinois, and Oregon in filing a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington state. At the same time, 18 other states along with San Francisco and Washington, D.C. have filed a related lawsuit in Massachusetts. Both groups accuse the president’s order, which seeks to modify birthright citizenship—a principle rooted in nearly two centuries of American law—of being unconstitutional and overstepping executive authority.
Under Trump’s order, children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, would be denied citizenship if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. In 2022, approximately 6,000 children in Arizona were born to noncitizen mothers, highlighting the potential impact of this executive measure. Mayes criticized Trump’s attempts to change constitutional protections, stating that “No president can unilaterally change the constitution on a whim. Only constitutional amendments can change the constitution.”
Constitutional amendments necessitate a two-thirds majority approval from both congressional chambers and ratification from three-fourths of the states, a formidable challenge in the current political climate. According to Mayes, the ramifications of eliminating birthright citizenship would extend beyond legal implications. It could jeopardize federal funding for essential state services, as those born without citizenship would be excluded from federal programs.
The lawsuit underscores the potential financial burdens on Arizona, which receives significant federal support linked to the number of citizens it reports. In fiscal year 2025, Arizona anticipates receiving over $935,000, which is critical for managing various health services. Any decline in reported citizens could lead to an estimated loss of upwards of $14,000 annually.
At the request of the Hobbs administration, state health agencies submitted declarations outlining how Trump’s executive order could hinder their operations, including hindrances in healthcare access for newborns. Krystal Colburn, from the Arizona Department of Health Services, noted the potential complications in identifying parent citizenship status based solely on birth certificates.
Additionally, Arizona’s strict voter registration laws complicate the situation further. The requirement for proof of citizenship for voting could result in significant challenges if birthright citizenship is abolished, potentially necessitating a complete overhaul of the state’s electoral processes.
Mayes also pointed out that hospitals, which currently have no protocols to verify parental citizenship during the birth certificate issuance process, could face undue pressure from such a shift. The core principle that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil has been upheld by Congress and courts alike, dating back to the 14th Amendment’s ratification shortly after the Civil War.
The historical significance of court decisions affirming this principle is clear. In cases such as Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that citizenship is granted regardless of parental status.
However, the Supreme Court’s current conservative composition raises uncertainty about the outcome of any legal challenges to the executive order. Mayes expressed cautious optimism, believing that the court’s justices may adhere to strict legal interpretations of the Constitution. “In our minds, this is not even close at all,” she asserted, hoping that the justices will uphold constitutional integrity.
This legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of an election cycle during which Arizona voters exhibited support for tougher immigration policies, with Trump securing 52% of the vote. Despite these trends, Mayes argues that the lawsuit is a necessary step to uphold deeply rooted legal standards rather than a reflection of voter endorsement for dismantling birthright citizenship. “I don’t think voters voted to undo birthright citizenship,” she claimed, framing the executive order as an extreme measure that diverges from the electorate’s intent.
As this dispute continues to develop, the implications for Arizona’s residents and the broader national landscape regarding citizenship and immigration policy remain at the forefront of debate.